Absolutely. Did you read the latest about the first American bishop who has stated that he wants priests, etc., to attend immigration hearings with immigrants? Obviously it worked.

I’m pretty sure the Vatican has no use for Vance.

You do know that the Pope pretty much shunned him while he was there and delegated someone to read him a homilly?

Indeed, and it’s rather the point. It’s about the same reception I’d expect Mike Lee to receive if he attempted to call on the Mormon church’s headquarters in SLC.

The Mormon church has a LOT of power in Utah. It’s basically a theocracy.

As a former state elected official in Utah:

I’m I being inaccurate? It’s how it’s been described to me by people who have lived there.

As a prominent land owner in downtown SLC they can certainly throw their weight around when they want something (a closed road, a downtown walking easement), but they tried very hard to avoid even the appearance of meddling in state politics. Many politicians are/were members, in both parties.

So “theocracy”? No, not in any meaning of the word that approaches its actual meaning.

That’s interesting, I was just reading that there’s a Mormon supermajority (86%) in Utah’s congress and LDS members make up 60% of the population there. That doesn’t affect policy at all?

“Majority” and “theocracy” are different things.

www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcn...

So the supermajority doesn’t affect policy at all?

You’re the one that said it was a theocracy. If you’ve changed your mind and believe it’s instead tyranny of the majority, great, but that’s a different argument.

Allow me to frame it slightly differently. Accusing officials of being controlled by another entity, whether a church or the U.N. (was accused several times of the latter, b/c people believe conspiracies) is an accusation of a lack of ethics. It cuts differently than an accusation of partisanship.

I mean, if their political leadership is based entirely on their religion, how is it not theocracy?